Is audio history destined to repeat itself?

[rollo]

  ... look Cd took a while to get right. .....

CD got it right ???            

Your LP-12 must be writing you out of the will as we speak.   

 OK,OK so its better than it was. 

 charles

[Barry (NJ)]

One thing not yet mentioned, is I think that they're pricing them selves into oblivion. Seriously. Think about the engineering/development/assembly/man-hours/etc. that go into manufacturing a car. Then think about how much some of this "High-End" audio costs. I understand that Honda will sell more cars than Wilson will speakers, but I could by 4 Hondas, or one Porsche, for the cost of a pair of Wilsons. Earlier, Flat Panel TV was mentioned. Even those things are very affordable as compared to a "High-End" audio system. I think that part of it is our own fault, because we keep buying this stuff. Now I'm not saying it all sounds the same, because I know it doesn't... But how much is it really worth? The marketing; dealers, magazines, forums, etc. kept touting the mega buck stuff, so the prices kept climbing. I think "High-End" would be far more wide spread if it weren't for the financial sacrifices necessary to play. Just my $.02

P.S. The starter and a couple of the responses in this thread are a good illustration of my point

[Bob in St. Louis]

But how much is it really worth?

What's it's worth, or what's it's value?
Big difference. 
'Cause it's "worth" what we're willing to pay.

Just sayin'........

Bob

[JLM]

Couldn't agree more with you Barry.

But the expense to move up can easily sneak up on you.  Partially because we obsess and let our imaginations run away with us.  And of course no self respecting audiophile wants to admit they can't appreciate the differences between say a $20 interconnect and a $200 one.

Being obsessive there is no such thing as "good enough", although a few will admit to having had something better/cheaper back whenever.  What I call "bass creep" is a good example.  You might start out with a nice pair of standmounts, not too expensive and they sound pretty good.  But they only go down to say 60 Hz and you know that you're missing the whole bottom octave.  Then you read opinions that the bottom octave is foundational.  So you read more and start thinking about subwoofers.  Which leads you to consider if you should connect through the sub or parallel.  Naturally two subs would be better than one.  Or maybe you should just trade up to bigger speakers.  Whichever way you go for that bottom octave the price for speakers just tripled and you've bought yourself sound transmission and room resonance headaches.  Oh and did I mention that if you went parallel you might need bigger amps too?

[tmazz]

Barry,

Unfortunately it's kind of a Catch-22.

The economics of small batch production causes very high prices which in turn cause sales to shrink, lowering the production runs, which in turn causes even higher prices which starts the whole thing over again. When did flat panel TV prices start to fall? When production volumes hit a critical mass such that economies of scale kicked in.

The problem we have with high end audio is that a) even in the heyday of high end the production volumes were extremely small compared to mass market producers and b) in recent years competition for discretionary spending form other entertainment categories such as video (home theater) and internet (not to mention a general drop in discretionary income due to the economic downturn) have eroded the base of high end customers even more. In a small volume business the fixed costs of running the business eat you alive as you production runs go down. If we as audiophiles stopped buying because of high prices my fear is that many of the high end companies could not lower their prices and remain solvent, so they would simply close up shop.  We are in a hobby that requires high technology and low production runs, a combination of twop things that doi not exist well in the same space. 

[JLM]

Its an embarrassment to see some of the prices charged.  Years ago I attended a local audio club meeting where two $1,000 pairs of speaker cable were compared.  No double blind testing, but none needed.  The designs couldn't look or sound more different, one looked like silver 3/4 inch garden hose, the other about the size of CAT5 in a clear/flat 2 inch wide film.  The little one lacked deep bass, duh.  The big one lacked resolution and made everything sound bloated.  I've had two pairs that cost under $200 each that bested either of those.

I'm saddened to see the end of bricks and mortar retail, but it had become a dinosaur with the geeky crowd moving to PC's/HT and the disposable income demographic (age 10 - 30) moving to MP3.  Internet direct retailing has taken a major bite out of what market was left for audio.  Tremendous values, like Odyssey Audio or Audio Concepts, Inc. are only available via the net.  It's also sad that due to the cost of R&D, affordable high end audio digital sources are increasingly coming from modding of products outside our normal interest: Squeeze Box, Oppo, iPod via Wadia 170, etc. 

My system was all researched/purchased via the net.  The CDP is English; the DAC is German (with American cottage industry mods); the monoblocks are from an American internet only company; cabling and speakers (with Japanese drivers) are from American cottages.  This seems to be the direction many audiophiles (who don't have tons of disposable income) are heading.

[shep]

" My system was all researched/purchased via the net.  The CDP is English; the DAC is German (with American cottage industry mods); the monoblocks are from an American internet only company; cabling and speakers (with Japanese drivers) are from American cottages.  This seems to be the direction many audiophiles (who don't have tons of disposable income) are heading. "
My history, with variations, in a nutshell. Despite the implications for small dealers, I am not sorry about this trend. I used to hate going hat-in-hand begging "mister can I listen to them there speakers? Please?" in hi-end salons where I couldn't possibly afford anything except maybe a pricey jap import lp. To be shooed out when a customer with maybe-money came in, none the wiser for my boot licking. Trolling the web, putting together opinions and hands-on experience, has been far more instructive and because I can't get caught out so easily by an impulse buy, I have made far fewer mistakes.

[BobM]

There is definitely some trickle down happening though. Unfortunately the smaller shops that often innivate something are not necessarily the ones who benefit most from that development. It's the big consumer production companies that pick up on the change, if it makes a splash, and incorporate it into their product. Tjhen they price it low and drive the original innovator out of business.

For instance, Meridian and Ayre picked up on the anti-aliasing filters in DAC chips. This was apparently developed by an independent fellow who licensed it to them for thier usage. It is ground breaking and produces a very real benefit on CD and digital playback. Well I just heard the new NAD class D integrated, which does something somewhat similar in their DAC software (at least I think it does per the salesman).

This little Class D amp doesn't sound anything like the other Class D amps that I've heard. No digital ants crawling up my spine. It is truly a stride forward for this topology and sounds damn nice. Very clean, but not great in the "love" department where we need a little bit of tube to help out. Not possible here because it processes everything in the digital domaine without adding unnecessary stages of analogue to digital transformation.

Enjoy,
Bob

[richidoo]

I'm watching that one closely, Bob. NAD M5. Thanks for the report.

A mom and pop can do some things better than the giants. Like change and adapt much faster, do customized work, and provide personalized service. But unless the price remains on par with the giant then it means nothing. In the end it's still just an amp.  It's more important than ever to deliver good value now.

[JLM]

Back on topic, I do see history repeating itself in terms of the masses not experiencing or appreciating what the 3D stereo image is.  That innovation has never been well understood, even by the audiophilia.  Much of the blame goes to the music producers and studio folks that could have mixed properly, but rarely have.  We don't even use the word stereo anymore to represent what all this is about.  Frankly the way many of us listen, we'd be ahead to just run a single (better) channel of amplification and loudspeaker.  Other than our human love/need for symmetry and balance, stereo could have been lost decades ago.

Now HT, MP3 driven personal listening habits, and in car systems could doom the whole thing.  Never fathomed by the masses, within a generation the industry we now call audio could be all but completely gone.

[Bigfish8]

Now HT, MP3 driven personal listening habits, and in car systems could doom the whole thing.  Never fathomed by the masses, within a generation the industry we now call audio could be all but completely gone.

It would be easy to agree with this comment but none of us can see the future.  While I was in college living in a dorm in 1972 there were two guys on the floor that had nice systems.  Audio gear back then was very expensive and therefore it was unique for someone to have a system.  The two guys that owned the systems were not wealthy, they just loved listening to music.  In relation to the current topic I believe the experience of my college days is that a certain, small percentage of people value the presentation of music more than the masses.  We now call this group audiophiles and I believe there will be a percentage of the population in future generations that will continue to value the presentation of music.  They will want it to listen to music in a unique way compared to the masses.  The equipment they use may be totally alien to what we use today but this group will be the audiophiles of future generations.  Since I believe in free enterprise I have confidence that companies or individuals will supply their needs.

Ken

[opnly bafld]

We don't even use the word stereo anymore to represent what all this is about. 
Frankly the way many of us listen, we'd be ahead to just run a single (better) channel of amplification and loudspeaker. 

You should look up the meaning of "stereo-phonic" from the Greek.
We now have 2,3,4,5,6,7+ channels that all fit the definition, so we call it 2 channel to differentiate.

Did you do a poll or something on how most of us listen?
Maybe we do listen as we do other things sometimes, but I think many (most?) of the 2/ch people on forums like AN sit in the "sweet spot" a lot also.
I'll be keeping my 2 speakers and stereo image thank you.

Lin

[JLM]

Lin,

I'm glad you're staying with 2 channel and recognize the stereo image.

Regarding use of the word "stereo", the commonly used term instead is now "audio".  Its not we audio/stereophiles that I was referring to, but the overall market, so please don't take offense.  Use of terms and sales of HT/MP3 versus 2 channel is obviously moving towards home theater, MP3 variants, and automotive sound, while use of the term audio regardless of how the word "stereophonic" was derived.  One of my points was that the population never "got" the whole stereo imaging concept and now that we've moved away from using the word stereo, the idea will be further buried.

Biaural recording/playback in theory would provide the best possible imaging.  With all the earbuds/headphones used with MP3 this should be much more popular than it is.  Without this technique there is no real image for the earbud/headphone user, so recognition of imaging is lost on a population that were largely unaware of it to start with.  And the other popular use of MP3, all those little plug in boom boxes of sorts are too small to image unless you live in a dog house.

In room creation of the 3D image is easier with stereo than with additional channels.  I certainly do recognize that if done right more channels (information) would provide a better defined image, but it's too complex and inflexible in nearly all instances.  First, the recording studio has more channels to mix into and balance with HT (and if the history of 2 channel is any guide there's little chance of them consistently getting it right with the extra complexity of additional channels).  The poor job of studio work alone has caused undetermined confusion in understanding what stereo really is all about.  Secondly, for HT to work correctly the speakers must be in proper positional relationship with each other versus stereo that "automatically" would have the 2 speakers side by side*.  Most residential rooms do not allow for this strict compliance for HT.  This was the downfall of the Klipschorns when stereo was popularized, so if Klipsch had a problem finding two proper adjoining walls, think of the challenges involved trying to appropriately locate 5 - 7 speakers.  Thirdly, due to the cost of the additional channels of amplification and speakers, quality typically is badly compromised.  The THX standards (a well thought out HT provision) are rarely followed or even known.  Fourth, in order to achieve proper listening balance between 2 speakers you need only to sit between them* but for HT you must sit in a single spot.  With multiple listeners most, unless a very large room is provided, will invariably get an unpleasant "ear full" of one channel or another.  So again the concept of imaging will continue to be lost on most folks.

*Yes, I know about the "sweet spot" and enjoy it greatly myself in "the" chair in my mancave and utilize proper speaker/listening positioning (I follow the Cardas formulas), but proper setup for HT is for the average user unrealistically restrictive.  2 channel can be enjoyed (not optimally) by just having the speakers side by side along one side of the room and sitting somewhere opposite them.  You just can't do that with HT.  Besides until 3D viewing becomes more prevalent (or we grow eyes on the sides/back of our heads) we are a forward oriented species, so most entertainment will be presented that way and the amount of rear channel information will remain minimal.

[drews_hifi]

My 2cents:

I dont think hifi is repeating history.

There have been very few audiophiles minted since the 70s.  Back then, hifi was fashionable.  You were single- you had yr car and yr hifi.  There were hifi ads in Penthouse and Playboy.

Music is still important to teens and twentysomethings.  But hifi is no longer in fashion.  Why?

Every non-audiophile who has heard my system pronounces amazement- I never knew music could sound like this.  But none have ever called back for advice on how to assemble their own system.

Observations
1:  Hi end marketing efforts are directed ONLY to the converted.
2:  Hi end retailers (bricks and mortar) are hanging on by a thread
3:  Current mass mktg efforts focus on quantity, not quality (ie i pods)
4:  The only successful current hifi business models (Magnepan and a few others excepted) involve v high margins
5:  Bose has been v effective convincing mass mkt that not so good is plenty good enough.

Conclusion:
When the boomers die off or lose their hearing, the high end will die with them.

Challenge:
Make hifi fashionable again.  When visitors see my system- they go wtf- and would never think of having that in their living space.  Its not just the money.

HiDef TV has been a huge success.  Almost every household has at least one hi def TV.  Why not for music???

[rollo]

The general public needs to be educated about fine sound and the enjoyment of music. As a relaxation tool like therapy. The model needs a fix. As drew pointed out back in the day it was the thing to have. There were single Manf. systems displayed in their own stores. Today IMO the system or component or cabling needs to be brought in ones home for an audition.
  ZU is thinking out of the box with ZU house parties. VG concept IMO. I tried to create a home audition business where one would pay a fee[ 50 to 75] for the in home demo. If gear is sold no fee. The fee would cover the salespersons out of pocket or traveling expense.
  This would enable the Manfs to lower their cost as the distributor and retailer are cut out. Saving 60%. If the salesperson was given just a 10% vig savings would be 50% below normal retail. I bet many more pieces would be sold than the existing method. Besides everyones complaint is "I need to hear it in MY system" would be solved. Then at the end of the year the demo pieces could be sold at big discount and still cover the Manfs costs. No losers all gainers.
  Then the so called high end boutiques could concentrate on the 3% who buy that gear. Just like Rolls Royce, Ferrari and the like. That crowd will be around for a while.
  My take.


charles